Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27
LEAGUE OF EDUCATIONAL VOTERS, a Washington non-profit corporation; WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit corporation: LAURIE JINKINS, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; DAVID FROCKT, an individual taxpayer and ‘Washington State Senator; JAMIE PEDERSON, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; ROBERT UTTER, an individual taxpayer and former Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court; KIM BIELSKI, an individual taxpayer; ANDY BUNN, an individual taxpayer; REBECCA BUNN, an individual taxpayer; REUVEN CARLYLE, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; JOHN CHESBROUGH, an individual taxpayer; DEB EDDY, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; SAM HUNT. an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; AMY MCKENNEY, an vidual taxpayer; KURT MILLER, an individual taxpayer and President of the Tacoma Publie Schools Board of Directors; JIM MOELLER, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; TIMM ORMSBY, an individual taxpayer ar MEMORANDUM OPINION Page | Washington State Representative; RYAN HON. BRUCE E, HELLER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 25185-3 SEA MEMORANDUM OPINION Judge Bruce B. Heller King County Superior Court S16 Thial Avenue Scatie, WA 9104 (206) 296.9085 2 23 24 PAINTER, an individual taxpayer; ERIC PETTIGREW, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; CHRIS REYKDAL, an individual taxpayer, Washington State Representative and Tumwater Schoo! Board Member; CINDY RYU, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; MIKE SELLS, an individual taxpayer and Washington State Representative; KRISTIN SKANDERUP, an. dividual taxpayer, Plaimifts, v The State of Washington; CHRISTINE, GREGOIRE, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington, Defendants, 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of RCW 34.135.034, This statute requires that any tax increases passed by the legislature be approved by two-thirds of both houses. ‘The statute also provides that any tax inereases that will result in expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit shall not take effect until approved by the voters. ‘The parties here do not dispute that the citizens of the State of Wash yeton ean require two-thirds majority in the legislature for passage of tax increases. Rather, the issue presented in this case is whether such a supermajority requirement can be implemented through the initi ive process or whether an amendment to the Washington Constitution is required. Secondly, is a constitutional amendment necessary before the legislature can be required to MEMORANDUM OPINION Budge Bruce F. Heller > king County Superior Court Page 2 ™ 516 Third Avenve Seal, WA 98104 (246) 296.9085 1 | submit all expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit to the voters for approval (“the 2. | mandatory referendum requirement”), This matter js before the court on cross motions for summary judginent. 4 I. BACKGROUND FACTS In 1993, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure 601, which provided: “[AJny ses state revenue or requires 6, | action or combination of actions by the legislature that r revenue-neutral tax shifts may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each hou 7 g_ | 94(). 1-601 also provided that if legislative action resulted in “expenditures in excess of the g__| State expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature shall not take effect until approved by o |" vote of the people at a November general election.” § 4(2). Both requirements have been enacted into a statute, RCW 43.135.034, " For most of the last 16 years, the supermajority requirement has been in effect, except e for relatively brief periods when it was suspended by a majority of the legislature. Under the 8 Washington Constitution, a two-thirds majority of the legislature is necessary to suspend an "4 J nitive within two years ofits passage. Wash. Const rt. § 1(€. The legislature has been 18, unable to suspend the supermajority requirement by a majority vote for much of the last 16 "6 | years because of three separate ballot reenactments ofthe supermajority requirement — '7 | Referendum 49 in 1998, 1-960 in 2007 and I-1053 in 2011, On January 6, 2012, [1185 was '8 | ited. Iapproved by the voters, it would reenact the supermajority requirement upon 19 | expiration of the two year period following the effective date of 1-1053. 20 Prior to the effective date of the original supermajority provision in 1-609 — July 1, 21 | 1995 —a lawsuit was filed asking our Supreme Court to prohibit its implementation. Walker v 22 | Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). The court held that since I-601 had not yet gone 23. | MEMORANDUM OPINION Budge Bruce feller P ing County Superior Court Page 3 516 Thiel Avenue a Seattle, WA D810 206) 296.9088

Вам также может понравиться